GooglePlus

Skype

Location

Interests

PSA Group is demanding a refund from General Motors of between $711 million and $948 million stemming from the purchase of Opel by PSA. PSA is claiming that GM misrepresented Opel's emissions reduction strategy during the due diligence negotiations.
EU Emissions regulations for 2021 set a target reduction of 130 g/km to 95 g/km. Regulators can fine manufacturers $113 per vehicle per gram over the limit. Any vehicle at the 130 g/km limit today would see fines of $3,955 per car sold.
PSA claims that GM's plan for reaching that target relied on unrealistically high sales of the Opel Ampera-E, the European model of the US built Chevrolet Bolt EV, and extra rosy forecasts of diesel sales. Opel loses $11,850 per Ampera-E sold. PSA has already cut sales of the Ampera-E in Norway and raised its price at least $6,700 for the rest of Europe. Adding to the trouble are falling diesel sales in Europe as consumers move to less efficient gasoline engines.
Even during the sale negotiations, PSA was was aware that GM was forecasting Opel to miss the 95 g/km target by 3.7 grams. Take the Ampera-E forecast of 20,000 vehicles out out of the picture and that number jumps to 6 g/km. Adjusting for falling diesel sales and Opel will miss its target by 10 grams. Such a large miss could result in fines approaching the entire purchase price of Opel ($1.54 billion).
PSA is now speeding into production electric or plug-in hybrid variants of Opel's mainstay cars, with the entire lineup being converted to PSA platform architecture by 2024.
PSA must now go through GM lawyers and arbitration to determine if they will get any refund from GM.
View full article

The EPA has announced that FCA will be issuing a voluntary recall of 862,520 gasoline vehicles in the United States that do not meet emissions standards. The vehicles covered are the 2011-2016 Dodge Journey, 2011-2014 Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avenger, 2011-2016 Jeep Patriot and Compass (with CVT and FWD), and 2011-2012 Dodge Caliber.
Due to the scope of the recall, the fixes will be issued in stages starting with the oldest vehicles. The fix involves replacing the catalytic converter. FCA has stated there are no safety concerns and no fines will be issued by the EPA.
The issue was discovered during routing in-use emissions testing by FCA and subsequently reported to the EPA.
FCA just settled a claim by the EPA that FCA used a cheat device in its diesel trucks and SUVS.
View full article

The EPA has announced that FCA will be issuing a voluntary recall of 862,520 gasoline vehicles in the United States that do not meet emissions standards. The vehicles covered are the 2011-2016 Dodge Journey, 2011-2014 Chrysler 200 and Dodge Avenger, 2011-2016 Jeep Patriot and Compass (with CVT and FWD), and 2011-2012 Dodge Caliber.
Due to the scope of the recall, the fixes will be issued in stages starting with the oldest vehicles. The fix involves replacing the catalytic converter. FCA has stated there are no safety concerns and no fines will be issued by the EPA.
The issue was discovered during routing in-use emissions testing by FCA and subsequently reported to the EPA.
FCA just settled a claim by the EPA that FCA used a cheat device in its diesel trucks and SUVS.

Ford is launching an investigation into its own emissions and fuel economy certification process according to a statement released by the company. The issue was brought to light back in September when a number of employees reported concerns through Ford's internal Speak Up channel.
The concern surrounds Road Load, a vehicle-specific resistance level used in dynamometer testing. Too much or too little resistance will alter the results of the emissions and fuel economy. Road load is determined through engineering estimates that are then validated on the track. Ford is evaluating changes to the road load determination process.
The company is quick to point out that none of the potential concerns involve the use of defeat devices and that no determination has been made on the need to restate Ford's fuel economy or emissions labels.
Ford has hired an outside firm to conduct an investigation into Ford's current processes and has shared their findings with both the EPA and CARB.
The first vehicle to be re-evaluated is the 2019 Ford Ranger with others to follow.

Ford is launching an investigation into its own emissions and fuel economy certification process according to a statement released by the company. The issue was brought to light back in September when a number of employees reported concerns through Ford's internal Speak Up channel.
The concern surrounds Road Load, a vehicle-specific resistance level used in dynamometer testing. Too much or too little resistance will alter the results of the emissions and fuel economy. Road load is determined through engineering estimates that are then validated on the track. Ford is evaluating changes to the road load determination process.
The company is quick to point out that none of the potential concerns involve the use of defeat devices and that no determination has been made on the need to restate Ford's fuel economy or emissions labels.
Ford has hired an outside firm to conduct an investigation into Ford's current processes and has shared their findings with both the EPA and CARB.
The first vehicle to be re-evaluated is the 2019 Ford Ranger with others to follow.
View full article

We noticed there was something missing in the press release of the 2019 Ram 2500 and 3500 HD trucks, a launch date. Sitting on the media room on Monday, both Drew and I found it a bit odd there was no mention of a launch window. Most automakers give a possible idea of when their upcoming vehicle will launch, but nothing from Ram Trucks. We may have the answer as to why.
Bloomberg is reporting that the Ram 3500 HD is awaiting emissions certification from the EPA to be approved before it can go on sale. One problem; the U.S. government is currently shut down and leaves the 3500 HD certification, along with other vehicles in limbo.
“I am concerned, very concerned, because if it continues, it will have an impact on the launch. The earlier that it can be resolved, clearly the better, and obviously I’m not the only person saying that,” said FCA CEO Mike Manley.
Ram has been riding an impressive sales momentum throughout 2018 and outsold the Chevrolet Silverado in fourth quarter sales to place behind the Ford F-Series. This pain inflicted by the shutdown could hurt Ram in terms of 2019 sales.
Source: Bloomberg

We noticed there was something missing in the press release of the 2019 Ram 2500 and 3500 HD trucks, a launch date. Sitting on the media room on Monday, both Drew and I found it a bit odd there was no mention of a launch window. Most automakers give a possible idea of when their upcoming vehicle will launch, but nothing from Ram Trucks. We may have the answer as to why.
Bloomberg is reporting that the Ram 3500 HD is awaiting emissions certification from the EPA to be approved before it can go on sale. One problem; the U.S. government is currently shut down and leaves the 3500 HD certification, along with other vehicles in limbo.
“I am concerned, very concerned, because if it continues, it will have an impact on the launch. The earlier that it can be resolved, clearly the better, and obviously I’m not the only person saying that,” said FCA CEO Mike Manley.
Ram has been riding an impressive sales momentum throughout 2018 and outsold the Chevrolet Silverado in fourth quarter sales to place behind the Ford F-Series. This pain inflicted by the shutdown could hurt Ram in terms of 2019 sales.
Source: Bloomberg
View full article

On Friday, California regulators voted to require that automakers stick with the Obama-era emission regulations for vehicles sold in the state, no matter the efforts of the Trump administration to weaken the standards. This basically means vehicles built for through 2025 model year comply with the state’s standards and can legally be sold there. Beginning with the 2026 model year, vehicles have to meet the stricter standards if automakers want to sell vehicles in the state, along with the 12 other states and Washington D.C. that follow these regulations.
This is the latest salvo in the fight between California and Trump administration over emission standards. Back in August, the administration unveiled a new proposal that would freeze fuel efficiency requirements at 2020 levels through 2026. This proposal earned a large amount of criticism and a lawsuit filed by a group of states led by California.
In a statement, California Air Resources Board's Chair Mary Nichols said the state would “continue to work to keep a single national program,” but that the vote “ensures that California and 12 other states will not fall victim to the Trump administration’s rollback of vehicle standards should its proposal be finalized.”
Source: Reuters
View full article

On Friday, California regulators voted to require that automakers stick with the Obama-era emission regulations for vehicles sold in the state, no matter the efforts of the Trump administration to weaken the standards. This basically means vehicles built for through 2025 model year comply with the state’s standards and can legally be sold there. Beginning with the 2026 model year, vehicles have to meet the stricter standards if automakers want to sell vehicles in the state, along with the 12 other states and Washington D.C. that follow these regulations.
This is the latest salvo in the fight between California and Trump administration over emission standards. Back in August, the administration unveiled a new proposal that would freeze fuel efficiency requirements at 2020 levels through 2026. This proposal earned a large amount of criticism and a lawsuit filed by a group of states led by California.
In a statement, California Air Resources Board's Chair Mary Nichols said the state would “continue to work to keep a single national program,” but that the vote “ensures that California and 12 other states will not fall victim to the Trump administration’s rollback of vehicle standards should its proposal be finalized.”
Source: Reuters

As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have unveiled a proposal that will suspend increases in fuel economy put forth by the Obama administration, and take away California's ability regulate vehicle emissions.
The new proposal is called the "Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule." Under the new proposal, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) would be capped at the 2020 level of 37 mpg through 2025. Under the rules that were created during the Obama administration, automakers would need to have a fleet average of 54 mpg in 2026. The proposal would also remove Calfornia's ability to set their own emissions state based on a 1975 federal law that prohibits states from setting their own greenhouse gas limits. It needs to be noted that two federal judges have rejected this argument when it was brought to court.
"EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver granted to California in 2013 for the GHG [Greenhouse Gas] and ZEV [Zero Emissions Vehicles] requirements of its Advanced Clean Cars program," the proposal states.
"In short, the agencies propose to maintain one national standard -- a standard that is set exclusively by the Federal government."
What are the benefits to this new proposal? The one that has been getting the most headlines is reduced fatalities and crashes. If you're scratching your head as to how this makes sense, here is what the proposal argues.
People who buy fuel-efficient vehicle will drive more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash.
Fuel-efficient vehicles will be more expensive, thus slowing down the rate people buy new cars with advanced safety features.
Fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be lighter, thus are less capable of withstanding a crash.
The proposal claims that this will prevent 12,700 fatalities and many more injuries on American roads.
There has been a lot of disagreement on this part, especially on the weight part. While it is true that a heavier vehicle won't sustain as much damage as lighter vehicle, experts have realized that the size of vehicle is more important to overall safety. Plus, the New York Times points out this point only accounts for one percent of the estimated fatalities in the proposal.
Other benefits include reduced costs for new vehicles - the proposal says the stricter emission rules add about an average of $2,430 to the price of new vehicles.
“We think we can have a win-win, if we lock in at 2020 levels. We’re not imposing undue costs on manufacturers. We’re not imposing undue costs on consumers who want affordable vehicles. And therefore we think as a result of these standards we will be able to have our cake and eat it too,” said Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a call today.
Reactions to this are very mixed.
“I applaud the Trump administration for proposing new standards for cars and trucks. Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket,” said Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs, and the environment," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers in a statement.
"The administration's effort to roll back these standards is a denial of basic science and a denial of American automakers' engineering capabilities and ingenuity," said John M. DeCicco, research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute.
"This was a predictable move, as the current administration has been working hard to dismantle Obama-era regulations across the board. And while there's little demand today for smaller, more-efficient or electrified vehicles in the U.S., as gas prices remain low, these lower fuel economy targets proposed by the administration will likely spark an unwanted war between Washington and the California Air Resources Board. While few stakeholders were happy with the tough targets in the current regulations, unraveling those standards will likely be even more painful," said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst at Autotrader.
Unsurprisingly, California is not pleased by this new proposal. The state along with 18 others and the District of Columbia have announced they would challenge the proposal in court.
“The Trump Administration has launched a brazen attack, no matter how it is cloaked, on our nation’s Clean Car Standards,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general.
California “will use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today’s national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”
California Governor Jerry Brown was more blunt in his reaction to this,
"California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”
A legal fight could mean a lot of headaches for automakers as it might result in two different emission standards they would have to meet.
"With today's release of the Administration's proposals, it's time for substantive negotiations to begin. We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America's drivers," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers.
The next step is giving the public 60 days to comment on this proposal.
Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, (2), Reuters, EPA
U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles
WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule), to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment.
The SAFE Vehicles Rule is the next generation of the Congressionally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is the first formal step in setting the 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and light-duty truck fleet.
In today’s proposal, EPA and NHTSA are seeking public comment on a wide range of regulatory options, including a preferred alternative that locks in MY 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases. The agencies’ preferred alternative reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction. It is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule. The joint proposal initiates a process to establish a new 50-state fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standard for passenger cars and light trucks covering MY 2021 through 2026.
“We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public’s input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner.”
“There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026,” said Secretary Elaine L. Chao. “More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public.”
The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families. Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.
Additionally, a 2018 government study by NHTSA shows new model year vehicles are safer, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries when involved in accidents, as compared to older models. Therefore, the Administration is focused on correcting the current standards that restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits.
On April 2, 2018, EPA issued the Mid-Term Evaluation Final Determination which found that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised. For more than a year, the agencies worked together to extensively analyze current automotive and fuel technologies, reviewed economic conditions and projections, and consulted with other federal agency partners to ensure the most reliable and accurate analysis possible.
EPA and NHTSA are seeking public feedback to ensure that all potential impacts concerning today’s proposal are fully considered and hope to issue a final rule this winter.
The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once published at the Federal Register

As expected, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have unveiled a proposal that will suspend increases in fuel economy put forth by the Obama administration, and take away California's ability regulate vehicle emissions.
The new proposal is called the "Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule." Under the new proposal, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) would be capped at the 2020 level of 37 mpg through 2025. Under the rules that were created during the Obama administration, automakers would need to have a fleet average of 54 mpg in 2026. The proposal would also remove Calfornia's ability to set their own emissions state based on a 1975 federal law that prohibits states from setting their own greenhouse gas limits. It needs to be noted that two federal judges have rejected this argument when it was brought to court.
"EPA is proposing to withdraw the waiver granted to California in 2013 for the GHG [Greenhouse Gas] and ZEV [Zero Emissions Vehicles] requirements of its Advanced Clean Cars program," the proposal states.
"In short, the agencies propose to maintain one national standard -- a standard that is set exclusively by the Federal government."
What are the benefits to this new proposal? The one that has been getting the most headlines is reduced fatalities and crashes. If you're scratching your head as to how this makes sense, here is what the proposal argues.
People who buy fuel-efficient vehicle will drive more, increasing the odds that they will get into a crash.
Fuel-efficient vehicles will be more expensive, thus slowing down the rate people buy new cars with advanced safety features.
Fuel-efficient vehicles tend to be lighter, thus are less capable of withstanding a crash.
The proposal claims that this will prevent 12,700 fatalities and many more injuries on American roads.
There has been a lot of disagreement on this part, especially on the weight part. While it is true that a heavier vehicle won't sustain as much damage as lighter vehicle, experts have realized that the size of vehicle is more important to overall safety. Plus, the New York Times points out this point only accounts for one percent of the estimated fatalities in the proposal.
Other benefits include reduced costs for new vehicles - the proposal says the stricter emission rules add about an average of $2,430 to the price of new vehicles.
“We think we can have a win-win, if we lock in at 2020 levels. We’re not imposing undue costs on manufacturers. We’re not imposing undue costs on consumers who want affordable vehicles. And therefore we think as a result of these standards we will be able to have our cake and eat it too,” said Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a call today.
Reactions to this are very mixed.
“I applaud the Trump administration for proposing new standards for cars and trucks. Unless the Obama administration’s punishing standards are changed, consumer choice will be limited and the cost of vehicles will skyrocket,” said Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
"Automakers support continued improvements in fuel economy and flexibilities that incentivize advanced technologies while balancing priorities like affordability, safety, jobs, and the environment," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers in a statement.
"The administration's effort to roll back these standards is a denial of basic science and a denial of American automakers' engineering capabilities and ingenuity," said John M. DeCicco, research professor at the University of Michigan Energy Institute.
"This was a predictable move, as the current administration has been working hard to dismantle Obama-era regulations across the board. And while there's little demand today for smaller, more-efficient or electrified vehicles in the U.S., as gas prices remain low, these lower fuel economy targets proposed by the administration will likely spark an unwanted war between Washington and the California Air Resources Board. While few stakeholders were happy with the tough targets in the current regulations, unraveling those standards will likely be even more painful," said Michelle Krebs, executive analyst at Autotrader.
Unsurprisingly, California is not pleased by this new proposal. The state along with 18 others and the District of Columbia have announced they would challenge the proposal in court.
“The Trump Administration has launched a brazen attack, no matter how it is cloaked, on our nation’s Clean Car Standards,” said Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general.
California “will use every legal tool at its disposal to defend today’s national standards and reaffirm the facts and science behind them.”
California Governor Jerry Brown was more blunt in his reaction to this,
"California will fight this stupidity in every conceivable way possible.”
A legal fight could mean a lot of headaches for automakers as it might result in two different emission standards they would have to meet.
"With today's release of the Administration's proposals, it's time for substantive negotiations to begin. We urge California and the federal government to find a common sense solution that sets continued increases in vehicle efficiency standards while also meeting the needs of America's drivers," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and and the Association of Global Automakers.
The next step is giving the public 60 days to comment on this proposal.
Source: Bloomberg, New York Times, (2), Reuters, EPA
U.S. EPA and DOT Propose Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2021-2026 Vehicles
WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule), to correct the national automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give the American people greater access to safer, more affordable vehicles that are cleaner for the environment.
The SAFE Vehicles Rule is the next generation of the Congressionally mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is the first formal step in setting the 2021-2026 Model Year (MY) standards that must be achieved by each automaker for its car and light-duty truck fleet.
In today’s proposal, EPA and NHTSA are seeking public comment on a wide range of regulatory options, including a preferred alternative that locks in MY 2020 standards through 2026, providing a much-needed time-out from further, costly increases. The agencies’ preferred alternative reflects a balance of safety, economics, technology, fuel conservation, and pollution reduction. It is anticipated to prevent thousands of on-road fatalities and injuries as compared to the standards set forth in the 2012 final rule. The joint proposal initiates a process to establish a new 50-state fuel economy and tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions standard for passenger cars and light trucks covering MY 2021 through 2026.
“We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” said EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public’s input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner.”
“There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026,” said Secretary Elaine L. Chao. “More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public.”
The current standards have been a factor in the rising cost of new automobiles to an average of $35,000 or more—out of reach for many American families. Indeed, compared to the preferred alternative in the proposal, keeping in place the standards finalized in 2012 would add $2,340 to the cost of owning a new car, and impose more than $500 billion in societal costs on the U.S. economy over the next 50 years.
Additionally, a 2018 government study by NHTSA shows new model year vehicles are safer, resulting in fewer deaths and injuries when involved in accidents, as compared to older models. Therefore, the Administration is focused on correcting the current standards that restrict the American people from being able to afford newer vehicles with more advanced safety features, better fuel economy, and associated environmental benefits.
On April 2, 2018, EPA issued the Mid-Term Evaluation Final Determination which found that the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards are not appropriate and should be revised. For more than a year, the agencies worked together to extensively analyze current automotive and fuel technologies, reviewed economic conditions and projections, and consulted with other federal agency partners to ensure the most reliable and accurate analysis possible.
EPA and NHTSA are seeking public feedback to ensure that all potential impacts concerning today’s proposal are fully considered and hope to issue a final rule this winter.
The public will have 60 days to provide feedback once published at the Federal Register
View full article

Under the current standards for vehicle emissions, automakers have a variety of ways to achieve compliance. These are known as "compliance flexibilities" which allows an automaker to sell electric vehicles to off-set gad-guzzlers like SUVs as an example. But the recent proposal by the Trump administration to ease emission standards, will remove these flexibilities.
The proposal unveiled last week would freeze fuel-economy and emissions standards at their 2020 levels for several years beyond that. This would seem like a positive for automakers as trucks and SUVs/crossovers are selling like hotcakes. But the removal of this provision has automakers crying fowl, saying these help with global vehicle development. The heads of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers wrote a letter to Trump stating that the “flexible compliance pathways that pave the way for research and deployment in advanced fuel-saving technologies”.
“We are global manufacturers; to compete around the world, we must continue to invest in both more efficient internal combustion engine technologies, electric-drive technologies and fuel cells,” said Mitch Bainwol of the Alliance, and John Bozzella of the Global Automakers.
But there is a reason the government is removing those compliance flexibilities as it "existing fuel-economy program easier to administer and more transparent". This makes it easier for regulators and consumers to verify an automaker's claim. The current system is somewhat confusing, as thirstier automakers can buy into compliance by trading emission credits from more efficient ones. The trades and prices can be shielded from public viewing.
Source: Bloomberg

Under the current standards for vehicle emissions, automakers have a variety of ways to achieve compliance. These are known as "compliance flexibilities" which allows an automaker to sell electric vehicles to off-set gad-guzzlers like SUVs as an example. But the recent proposal by the Trump administration to ease emission standards, will remove these flexibilities.
The proposal unveiled last week would freeze fuel-economy and emissions standards at their 2020 levels for several years beyond that. This would seem like a positive for automakers as trucks and SUVs/crossovers are selling like hotcakes. But the removal of this provision has automakers crying fowl, saying these help with global vehicle development. The heads of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers wrote a letter to Trump stating that the “flexible compliance pathways that pave the way for research and deployment in advanced fuel-saving technologies”.
“We are global manufacturers; to compete around the world, we must continue to invest in both more efficient internal combustion engine technologies, electric-drive technologies and fuel cells,” said Mitch Bainwol of the Alliance, and John Bozzella of the Global Automakers.
But there is a reason the government is removing those compliance flexibilities as it "existing fuel-economy program easier to administer and more transparent". This makes it easier for regulators and consumers to verify an automaker's claim. The current system is somewhat confusing, as thirstier automakers can buy into compliance by trading emission credits from more efficient ones. The trades and prices can be shielded from public viewing.
Source: Bloomberg
View full article

G. David Felt - Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.cheersandgears.com
Study Suggests VW Emissions will lead to 1200 premature deaths in Europe alone!
This study covers the effects around the Globe that VW diesel emissions scandal will cause. The US is equally affected but on a lower number of 60 expected deaths. This is based on the number of autos old sold, 482,000 TDI in the US versusus 2.6 millions. Plenty of interesting information but end result is an increase in the emissions from VW TDi directly affects health and the length of life world wide. Pretty amazing read at MIT News.
Study Here

It seems any auto manufacturer that has built a diesel in recent years is getting hit with a lawsuit. The latest one to hit the courts involves Ford and their Super Duty pickups.
According to Bloomberg, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Ford and supplier Bosch for using emissions-cheating software on the 2011 to 2017 F-250 and F-350 Super Duty trucks. The suit alleges that Ford conspired with Bosch on developing software that would allow the company to alter engine parameters to help emission standards during EPA testing. In the real world, the engines would spew out as much as 50 times the legal limit for nitrogen oxide pollutants. The suit alleges 58 violations of state consumer law, false advertising and racketeering claims.
“The vehicle’s own on-board diagnostic software indicates emission control system to be operating as Ford intended, even though its real world performance grossly exceeds the standard,” said Steve Berman, a managing partner at Hagens Berman in the complaint.
“All Ford vehicles, including those with diesel engines, comply with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations. Ford vehicles do not have defeat devices. We will defend ourselves against these baseless claims,” said Daniel Barbosa, a spokesman for Ford to Bloomberg.
This comes only a day after Ford announced the specifications for the upcoming F-150 Power Stroke diesel.
Source: Bloomberg
View full article

It seems any auto manufacturer that has built a diesel in recent years is getting hit with a lawsuit. The latest one to hit the courts involves Ford and their Super Duty pickups.
According to Bloomberg, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Ford and supplier Bosch for using emissions-cheating software on the 2011 to 2017 F-250 and F-350 Super Duty trucks. The suit alleges that Ford conspired with Bosch on developing software that would allow the company to alter engine parameters to help emission standards during EPA testing. In the real world, the engines would spew out as much as 50 times the legal limit for nitrogen oxide pollutants. The suit alleges 58 violations of state consumer law, false advertising and racketeering claims.
“The vehicle’s own on-board diagnostic software indicates emission control system to be operating as Ford intended, even though its real world performance grossly exceeds the standard,” said Steve Berman, a managing partner at Hagens Berman in the complaint.
“All Ford vehicles, including those with diesel engines, comply with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations. Ford vehicles do not have defeat devices. We will defend ourselves against these baseless claims,” said Daniel Barbosa, a spokesman for Ford to Bloomberg.
This comes only a day after Ford announced the specifications for the upcoming F-150 Power Stroke diesel.
Source: Bloomberg

PSA Group is demanding a refund from General Motors of between $711 million and $948 million stemming from the purchase of Opel by PSA. PSA is claiming that GM misrepresented Opel's emissions reduction strategy during the due diligence negotiations.
EU Emissions regulations for 2021 set a target reduction of 130 g/km to 95 g/km. Regulators can fine manufacturers $113 per vehicle per gram over the limit. Any vehicle at the 130 g/km limit today would see fines of $3,955 per car sold.
PSA claims that GM's plan for reaching that target relied on unrealistically high sales of the Opel Ampera-E, the European model of the US built Chevrolet Bolt EV, and extra rosy forecasts of diesel sales. Opel loses $11,850 per Ampera-E sold. PSA has already cut sales of the Ampera-E in Norway and raised its price at least $6,700 for the rest of Europe. Adding to the trouble are falling diesel sales in Europe as consumers move to less efficient gasoline engines.
Even during the sale negotiations, PSA was was aware that GM was forecasting Opel to miss the 95 g/km target by 3.7 grams. Take the Ampera-E forecast of 20,000 vehicles out out of the picture and that number jumps to 6 g/km. Adjusting for falling diesel sales and Opel will miss its target by 10 grams. Such a large miss could result in fines approaching the entire purchase price of Opel ($1.54 billion).
PSA is now speeding into production electric or plug-in hybrid variants of Opel's mainstay cars, with the entire lineup being converted to PSA platform architecture by 2024.
PSA must now go through GM lawyers and arbitration to determine if they will get any refund from GM.

Automakers have been trying different technologies and ideas in an effort to boost fuel economy and reduce emissions. On paper, the new technologies do make a difference. But in the real world, it is a completely different matter.
Emissions Analytics, an independent U.K.-based company has been investigating what technologies actually make a difference in reducing emissions and fuel consumption. For the past four years, the company has tested over 500 vehicles in the U.S. since 2013 in real-world driving situations. Globally, it has tested over 1,000 vehicles. Next month, the company will be releasing a study showing which of those technologies help and hurt.
"You can only decide if you have the right information. The EPA sticker is — I would say — good up to a point, but we can give a lot more information," said Nick Molden, Emissions Analytics' founder and CEO.
Their data shows that over four years of testing in the U.S., there is "no actual improvement in overall fuel economy and no decrease in CO2 emissions," despite new technologies and complex powertrains.
EA's data also revealed that downsized turbo engines show huge discrepancies between the EPA's findings and the real world. In the lab, the engines aren't put under stress and can produce high fuel economy figures. But it is a different story out in the real world when the turbos are engaged to keep up with traffic and becomes less efficient than a non-turbocharged engine.
"Downsizing is a good thing up to a point. You go past a certain inflection point and actually you can find that the real-world mpg will actually get worse if you go too small," said Molden.
"As soon as you start going below 2 liters, that's where we start seeing the gaps open up between EPA sticker and real world."
The study did deliver some good news for hybrids. EA found traditional hybrid vehicle provided high fuel economy figures and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as multispeed transmissions, adding lightness, and picking the right tires provide a meaningful impact.
Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
View full article

Automakers have been trying different technologies and ideas in an effort to boost fuel economy and reduce emissions. On paper, the new technologies do make a difference. But in the real world, it is a completely different matter.
Emissions Analytics, an independent U.K.-based company has been investigating what technologies actually make a difference in reducing emissions and fuel consumption. For the past four years, the company has tested over 500 vehicles in the U.S. since 2013 in real-world driving situations. Globally, it has tested over 1,000 vehicles. Next month, the company will be releasing a study showing which of those technologies help and hurt.
"You can only decide if you have the right information. The EPA sticker is — I would say — good up to a point, but we can give a lot more information," said Nick Molden, Emissions Analytics' founder and CEO.
Their data shows that over four years of testing in the U.S., there is "no actual improvement in overall fuel economy and no decrease in CO2 emissions," despite new technologies and complex powertrains.
EA's data also revealed that downsized turbo engines show huge discrepancies between the EPA's findings and the real world. In the lab, the engines aren't put under stress and can produce high fuel economy figures. But it is a different story out in the real world when the turbos are engaged to keep up with traffic and becomes less efficient than a non-turbocharged engine.
"Downsizing is a good thing up to a point. You go past a certain inflection point and actually you can find that the real-world mpg will actually get worse if you go too small," said Molden.
"As soon as you start going below 2 liters, that's where we start seeing the gaps open up between EPA sticker and real world."
The study did deliver some good news for hybrids. EA found traditional hybrid vehicle provided high fuel economy figures and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as multispeed transmissions, adding lightness, and picking the right tires provide a meaningful impact.
Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

The diesel emission scandal has once again flared up as Audi stands accused of using illegal software on certain A7 and A8 TDI models.
Yesterday, German Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt announced that Audi employed illegal software to cheat emission tests on certain A7 and A8 models built between 2009 to 2013. The affected models are said to emit twice the legal limit of nitrogen oxides when the steering wheel is turned more than 15 degrees - a condition that would happen in the real world and not in the lab.
German tabloid Bild reported that Volkswagen Group CEO Matthias Mueller was summoned to the transport ministry. A ministry spokesman confirmed Muller's visit to Reuters.
The ministry has requested the company to issue a recall on the two models - 24,000 in total with 14,000 of those registered in Germany - and set a deadline for June 12 for a plan to retrofit the vehicles with legal software. Audi did issue the recall last night and said it has a fix coming in July.
According to a source, the issue deals with the interaction between transmission and engine control units and that a fix has been submitted to Germany's transportation watchdog, the KBA.
Source: Deutsche Welle, Reuters

The diesel emission scandal has once again flared up as Audi stands accused of using illegal software on certain A7 and A8 TDI models.
Yesterday, German Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt announced that Audi employed illegal software to cheat emission tests on certain A7 and A8 models built between 2009 to 2013. The affected models are said to emit twice the legal limit of nitrogen oxides when the steering wheel is turned more than 15 degrees - a condition that would happen in the real world and not in the lab.
German tabloid Bild reported that Volkswagen Group CEO Matthias Mueller was summoned to the transport ministry. A ministry spokesman confirmed Muller's visit to Reuters.
The ministry has requested the company to issue a recall on the two models - 24,000 in total with 14,000 of those registered in Germany - and set a deadline for June 12 for a plan to retrofit the vehicles with legal software. Audi did issue the recall last night and said it has a fix coming in July.
According to a source, the issue deals with the interaction between transmission and engine control units and that a fix has been submitted to Germany's transportation watchdog, the KBA.
Source: Deutsche Welle, Reuters
View full article

Volkswagen isn't the only automaker that has the attention of German prosecutors. Yesterday, prosecutors carried out raids at various Daimler (parent company of Mercedes-Benz) buildings. This is part of an investigation into fraud related to false advertising and the possible manipulation of emissions with diesel powered vehicles.
The Stuttgart public prosecutor's office told Reuters the raids were carried out "against known and unknown employees at Daimler, who are suspected of fraud and misleading advertising connected to manipulated emissions treatment of diesel passenger cars."
23 prosecutors and around 230 staff, including police and state criminal authorities, searched 11 sites to look for evidence to help build a case.
Diamler confirmed the raids to Reuters and said it was "cooperating with authorities."
The company is also under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for emission discrepancies with diesel vehicles.
Source: Reuters

Volkswagen isn't the only automaker that has the attention of German prosecutors. Yesterday, prosecutors carried out raids at various Daimler (parent company of Mercedes-Benz) buildings. This is part of an investigation into fraud related to false advertising and the possible manipulation of emissions with diesel powered vehicles.
The Stuttgart public prosecutor's office told Reuters the raids were carried out "against known and unknown employees at Daimler, who are suspected of fraud and misleading advertising connected to manipulated emissions treatment of diesel passenger cars."
23 prosecutors and around 230 staff, including police and state criminal authorities, searched 11 sites to look for evidence to help build a case.
Diamler confirmed the raids to Reuters and said it was "cooperating with authorities."
The company is also under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for emission discrepancies with diesel vehicles.
Source: Reuters
View full article

Since President Donald Trump was elected, automakers have been pushing for him to relax the stricter fuel economy and emission regulations coming into effect by 2025. Now there is another group calling for this.
At the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) annual conference, dealers voiced support for the new president ease the upcoming regulations.
"You inflate the price of the vehicle and a car that was maybe within reach of being affordable now may not be," said NADA's new chairman, Mark Scarpelli to Reuters.
Scarpelli argues that the tech needed to improve fuel economy adds $1,500 to $3,000 to the price of a vehicle. He also says that a "different phase-in period" for the regulations would be welcomed.
The big argument dealers are using is the regulations would cause automakers to build vehicles that buyers aren't interested in.
"They've got to make regulation more in line with consumer demand so (the automakers) can build what people want and not what the government’s telling them they have to build," said Pete DeLongchamps, vice president of Group 1 Automotive Inc.
Source: Reuters
View full article

Since President Donald Trump was elected, automakers have been pushing for him to relax the stricter fuel economy and emission regulations coming into effect by 2025. Now there is another group calling for this.
At the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) annual conference, dealers voiced support for the new president ease the upcoming regulations.
"You inflate the price of the vehicle and a car that was maybe within reach of being affordable now may not be," said NADA's new chairman, Mark Scarpelli to Reuters.
Scarpelli argues that the tech needed to improve fuel economy adds $1,500 to $3,000 to the price of a vehicle. He also says that a "different phase-in period" for the regulations would be welcomed.
The big argument dealers are using is the regulations would cause automakers to build vehicles that buyers aren't interested in.
"They've got to make regulation more in line with consumer demand so (the automakers) can build what people want and not what the government’s telling them they have to build," said Pete DeLongchamps, vice president of Group 1 Automotive Inc.
Source: Reuters